It’s a robot vacuum cleaner that hasn’t worked for a long time, stored in the cellar instead of being thrown away. It’s a broken connected watch, which has been waiting quietly on the nightstand for several weeks. There are dozens of smartphones sleeping in cupboards, unused and sometimes unusable. Of course, we repeat ourselves, “it can always be useful” or “I don’t know which bin to put them in”. But maybe we also refuse to throw them away for a simpler reason: attachment.
“Be careful, let’s remember that digital objects are expensive and it is therefore logical to be more attached to them than to a fork for example, which we can easily replace”, tempers Nicolas Spatola, a specialist in human-robot interactions.
Deminers sad about the explosion of their robots
Nevertheless, the human being has a tendency to anthropomorphism. Even when the cost of the object is not borne by the user, the latter will forge one-way links with plastic and silicon. “We project intentions onto objects, begins the philosopher and computer scientist Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (1). When a computer bugs, the user can take it personally, and it’s not uncommon for robot vacuum owners to see them as an animal presence or stick plastic eyes on them. »
This phenomenon of attachment has been observed even in the military ranks. American soldiers in Afghanistan demanded the repair of “their” demining robot, which had saved their lives. “Many of them found themselves depressed after damage to their machine, which for them had become the equivalent of a combat companion”, noted a study by the Foundation for Political Innovation.
From tool status to companion status
Daily, “it’s the smartphone that embodies a real digital cuddly toy, says Michael Stora, psychologist and co-founder of the Observatory of Digital Worlds in the Humanities. It overcomes loneliness and carries with it a whole affective memory of the user, with messages, photos, videos, etc. ». “The attachment to the smartphone is due to use, confirms Nicolas Spatola. We see an increase in the affect over time: we are not very attached to our smartphone when buying it, and much more afterwards. It is anchored in our daily life. »
With their ability to predict, anticipate, respond, “connected objects have gone from being a tool to being a companion, analyzes Dominique Sciamma, specialist in digital design. It is a relational link and not just a utilitarian one, as one can have with a screwdriver”. It is also striking to note that we are talking about conversational “agents”, and not conversational “algorithms”, even though it is a computer program, nothing more.
“These objects imitate intentions towards the user, they really interact with him”, explains Laurence Devillers, expert in artificial intelligence (2). “Designers deploy tricks to make you want to stay in interaction, she continues. LAttention capture mechanisms are not new, but they are amplified by digital technology. » In summary: these objects are designed to be endearing, even tacky.
Everyday intrusive objects
“We went from object design to relationship design, anticipating how the user interacts, so that the exchange is as fluid as possible. », supports Dominique Sciamma. Since the advent of touchscreen keyboards and the end of buttons, “objects change very little in their form”notes Jean-Gabriel Ganascia.
A smartwatch always looks like a watch, and with flat screens, all televisions are basically the same. “But these objects are digitally augmented, update after update, continues the one who is part of the committee on digital ethics. And they are designed to make us consumers, in a form of servitude. »
They signal their presence, ask for attention, like the Tamagotchi, these little colored eggs that were all the rage in the 1990s by simulating animals. “Connected objects vibrate, send notifications, they are noisy and intrusive, which more and more users find unbearable, observe Michael Stora. Finally, they make us very dependent, in the technique as in the relationship with others. » A dependency that can, in some cases, turn into an addiction.
A different attachment depending on the culture
Are we less sensitive to this influence when we master the cogs of the machine? ” I do not know, responds frankly Laurence Devillers. Someone who understands the technology very well may refuse it, as well as someone who is completely unfamiliar with it and is wary of it. » The relationship to digital depends above all on the user and his culture, more than on the object itself.
Asian countries thus tolerate cohabitation much better. “The Japanese will approach a robot by looking at how it looks like them, because of Shintoism, an animist religion, describes Nicolas Spatola. In the West, we will consider, on the contrary, what separates us from the robot. » Which does not prevent, in any case, a form of anthropomorphism.
“But really, what’s wrong with being sad when your vacuum cleaner breaks down?” This attachment is rather revealing of our humanity”, believes Dominique Sciamma. For him, “The danger lies not in the intentions that users attribute to objects, but rather in the intentions behind the design of these objects”. Between an adorable robot dog who signals that he is hungry and the same robot dog who offers to buy virtual kibble in JNF (non-fungible tokens, NFT in English), there is only one technological step. But an ethical chasm.
——
When screens are addictive
Addiction to video games is currently the only digital practice recognized as a disease in its own right in the classification of the World Health Organization.
Other forms of digital addiction are considered according to different categories of behavioral disorders, such as anxiety and compulsive behaviors.
When digital use turns into addictionthis often hides other problems, such as social isolation.